I can't really fault him for wanting to protect his reasearch until its solid.. that being said, if he's going to say that he might be on to something he should probably prepare for people to call him a loon until he proves it.

RubberBabyBuggyBumpers:Nobody thought humans could fly in a heavier-than-air craft, either. The science of the day was very certain of this.

True, but the people claiming to have invented a way to do it never said "Oh, sure, it totally works, but I can't reveal anything about it or prove it in any way." The issue is not necessarily with his claim, it's his refusal to back it up that makes him a loon. It's the same thing with any snake oil salesman who claims to have a perpetual motion engine that runs on magnets or a motor that runs on water.

RubberBabyBuggyBumpers:Nobody thought humans could fly in a heavier-than-air craft, either. The science of the day was very certain of this.

And? Does that mean anything at all is now possible? What the hell kind of argument is that?

Pelvic Splanchnic Ganglion:RubberBabyBuggyBumpers: Nobody thought humans could fly in a heavier-than-air craft, either. The science of the day was very certain of this.

True, but the people claiming to have invented a way to do it never said "Oh, sure, it totally works, but I can't reveal anything about it or prove it in any way." The issue is not necessarily with his claim, it's his refusal to back it up that makes him a loon. It's the same thing with any snake oil salesman who claims to have a perpetual motion engine that runs on magnets or a motor that runs on water.

Way too complicated.

"I WAS PROMISED STUFF BY SCI-FI AND IT'S LIKE TOTALLY GONNA HAPPEN BECAUSE WHEEEEEE! AND COMPUTERS GOT BETTER!!!!!"

It's amazing how many people think like children.

Lost Thought 00:Any engineer that claims to violate the second law of thermodynamics should be immediately removed from their position

And given a job at the Space Nutter Center for Claiming Anything is Possible Because a Scientist Was Wrong Once.

RubberBabyBuggyBumpers:Nobody thought humans could fly in a heavier-than-air craft, either. The science of the day was very certain of this.

Not really. The very idea was absurd on its face- heavier-than-air-craft occur in nature. While none approach man-sized, it's very clear that it's little more than an engineering challenge. There was no physical limit that prevented heavier-than-air craft. It was a matter of understanding the principles of extant heavier-than-air craft (birds) and scaling them to human scales.

Nothing travels faster than light*. When we find an existing FTL particle, then we can start talking about scaling it up to human beings. As it stands now, there's no reason to even discuss FTL in a serious way. Further, since FTL also allows time travel, it raises the next question: why aren't we receiving signals from our future selves?

* Quantum entanglement arguably has an FTL component, but since we don't know of any mechanism for information exchange, I'd hesitate to say that anything actually goes faster than light. Since any communication over quantum effects still requires a causal, light-speed channel, you're still rate limited to the speed of light.

t3knomanser:RubberBabyBuggyBumpers: Nobody thought humans could fly in a heavier-than-air craft, either. The science of the day was very certain of this.

Not really. The very idea was absurd on its face- heavier-than-air-craft occur in nature. While none approach man-sized, it's very clear that it's little more than an engineering challenge. There was no physical limit that prevented heavier-than-air craft. It was a matter of understanding the principles of extant heavier-than-air craft (birds) and scaling them to human scales.

Nothing travels faster than light*. When we find an existing FTL particle, then we can start talking about scaling it up to human beings. As it stands now, there's no reason to even discuss FTL in a serious way. Further, since FTL also allows time travel, it raises the next question: why aren't we receiving signals from our future selves?

* Quantum entanglement arguably has an FTL component, but since we don't know of any mechanism for information exchange, I'd hesitate to say that anything actually goes faster than light. Since any communication over quantum effects still requires a causal, light-speed channel, you're still rate limited to the speed of light.

I've got my bugout bag ready for when warp drive totally becomes real. Will it be Boeing or Airbus that makes the first warp-capable space liner? Will they use GE or Rolls Royce or Pratt & Whitney warp turbines? Oh I'm so excited!!!!

So basically this guy is claiming to have theorhetically figured out how a warp drive might work but has nothing tangible yet to show us? Until he can prove his claims I don't see any reason to have any opinion other than "hrm, interesting.", which is the same opinion I had before and after reading this article. What are you guys arguing about?

t3knomanser:RubberBabyBuggyBumpers: Nobody thought humans could fly in a heavier-than-air craft, either. The science of the day was very certain of this.

Not really. The very idea was absurd on its face- heavier-than-air-craft occur in nature. While none approach man-sized, it's very clear that it's little more than an engineering challenge. There was no physical limit that prevented heavier-than-air craft. It was a matter of understanding the principles of extant heavier-than-air craft (birds) and scaling them to human scales.

Nothing travels faster than light*. When we find an existing FTL particle, then we can start talking about scaling it up to human beings. As it stands now, there's no reason to even discuss FTL in a serious way. Further, since FTL also allows time travel, it raises the next question: why aren't we receiving signals from our future selves?

* Quantum entanglement arguably has an FTL component, but since we don't know of any mechanism for information exchange, I'd hesitate to say that anything actually goes faster than light. Since any communication over quantum effects still requires a causal, light-speed channel, you're still rate limited to the speed of light.

I'm going to sound really silly asking this... But since you mentioned the whole speed of light thing, I think this is a good time.

Every has always said that nothing can travel faster than the speed of light. Yet, the standard Big Bang theory postulates that when the bang occured, the inverse itself went from a particle sized point to something BILLIONS of miles across, in only a few 1000's of a second.That seems to be a rather large distance to cover at the plodding speed of light.Is this presumable because the laws of physics as we understand them now, simply didn't exist yet as the universe was initially exapanding?

I'm not half as interested in the warp drive as I am in the Quantum Thruster, also being developed by the NASA advanced propulsion group, and much farther along. They're going to have hardware to test on the space station in a year or so, using the q-thruster as an RCS station-keeping thruster that has no fuel component, no mass to throw out; just electrical power. If it proves out, versions where multiple Q-thrusters are stacked to accelerate probes and manned craft to the edges of the solar system will open up the frontier for space colinization. The fact it's name is similar to our favorite Amish fixie cyclist is just a delicious bonus.

Quantum Apostrophe:Stone Meadow: Has Technobevets weighed in on this yet? I can't form an opinion until I read his.

Even an idiot like you should be able to reach the obvious conclusion here.

Let me help you: no one is going anywhere. How you like that!?

Can you please point to the "technology" here? It's as technological as John Titor's time machine, or Bob Lazar's space drive.

Get real, you idiot.

Goddamn you are vicious. We may call you a loon and troll, but you call people idiots and morons. Here, time to level it up some:YOU ARE AN ASSHOLE. I HOPE YOU NEED A 3D PRINTED HEART ONE DAY, YA SH*T ASS.

durbnpoisn:t3knomanser: RubberBabyBuggyBumpers: Nobody thought humans could fly in a heavier-than-air craft, either. The science of the day was very certain of this.

Not really. The very idea was absurd on its face- heavier-than-air-craft occur in nature. While none approach man-sized, it's very clear that it's little more than an engineering challenge. There was no physical limit that prevented heavier-than-air craft. It was a matter of understanding the principles of extant heavier-than-air craft (birds) and scaling them to human scales.

Nothing travels faster than light*. When we find an existing FTL particle, then we can start talking about scaling it up to human beings. As it stands now, there's no reason to even discuss FTL in a serious way. Further, since FTL also allows time travel, it raises the next question: why aren't we receiving signals from our future selves?

* Quantum entanglement arguably has an FTL component, but since we don't know of any mechanism for information exchange, I'd hesitate to say that anything actually goes faster than light. Since any communication over quantum effects still requires a causal, light-speed channel, you're still rate limited to the speed of light.

I'm going to sound really silly asking this... But since you mentioned the whole speed of light thing, I think this is a good time.

Every has always said that nothing can travel faster than the speed of light. Yet, the standard Big Bang theory postulates that when the bang occured, the inverse itself went from a particle sized point to something BILLIONS of miles across, in only a few 1000's of a second.That seems to be a rather large distance to cover at the plodding speed of light.Is this presumable because the laws of physics as we understand them now, simply didn't exist yet as the universe was initially exapanding?

Nothing was traveling through space faster than light, space was expanding faster than light.

durbnpoisn:Yet, the standard Big Bang theory postulates that when the bang occured, the inverse itself went from a particle sized point to something BILLIONS of miles across, in only a few 1000's of a second.

This is called "inflation". Essentially, space simply got bigger. The distance between points increased even while nothing was actually moving. Yes, it's weird. Space doesn't have to obey any sorts of speed limits, so space itself can expand and even move at speeds faster than light itself. An interesting side effect of this happens in a region near a black hole called the "ergosphere". If a black hole is spinning rapidly, its gravity is so strong that it can literally start spacetime spinning around it. That spacetime can spin faster than the speed of light. This means that an object in the ergosphere cannot ever stand still relative to an object outside of the ergosphere, because it would have to go faster than the speed of light to do so.

t3knomanser: Nothing travels faster than light*. When we find an existing FTL particle, then we can start talking about scaling it up to human beings. As it stands now, there's no reason to even discuss FTL in a serious way. Further, since FTL also allows time travel, it raises the next question: why aren't we receiving signals from our future selves?

Because we haven't built one yet and it has been shown they can only work to send back in time to the first date they existed, or after.

durbnpoisn:I'm going to sound really silly asking this... But since you mentioned the whole speed of light thing, I think this is a good time.

Every has always said that nothing can travel faster than the speed of light. Yet, the standard Big Bang theory postulates that when the bang occured, the inverse itself went from a particle sized point to something BILLIONS of miles across, in only a few 1000's of a second.That seems to be a rather large distance to cover at the plodding speed of light.Is this presumable because the laws of physics as we understand them now, simply didn't exist yet as the universe was initially exapanding?

Ok let me try this one. If I understand correctly the expansion of the universe itself is not held to the speed of light. Objects within the universe are limited to the speed of light but the actual fabric of space-time is not.

durbnpoisn:t3knomanser: RubberBabyBuggyBumpers: Nobody thought humans could fly in a heavier-than-air craft, either. The science of the day was very certain of this.

Not really. The very idea was absurd on its face- heavier-than-air-craft occur in nature. While none approach man-sized, it's very clear that it's little more than an engineering challenge. There was no physical limit that prevented heavier-than-air craft. It was a matter of understanding the principles of extant heavier-than-air craft (birds) and scaling them to human scales.

Nothing travels faster than light*. When we find an existing FTL particle, then we can start talking about scaling it up to human beings. As it stands now, there's no reason to even discuss FTL in a serious way. Further, since FTL also allows time travel, it raises the next question: why aren't we receiving signals from our future selves?

* Quantum entanglement arguably has an FTL component, but since we don't know of any mechanism for information exchange, I'd hesitate to say that anything actually goes faster than light. Since any communication over quantum effects still requires a causal, light-speed channel, you're still rate limited to the speed of light.

I'm going to sound really silly asking this... But since you mentioned the whole speed of light thing, I think this is a good time.

Every has always said that nothing can travel faster than the speed of light. Yet, the standard Big Bang theory postulates that when the bang occured, the inverse itself went from a particle sized point to something BILLIONS of miles across, in only a few 1000's of a second.That seems to be a rather large distance to cover at the plodding speed of light.Is this presumable because the laws of physics as we understand them now, simply didn't exist yet as the universe was initially exapanding?

Essentially, the best explanation I saw was that the energies involved were simply so massive that they basically ignored and shredded whatever extant physical laws existed at the time and once the universe cooled a tiny bit the new mangled ones we have now settled in.

This is the same theory that says we likely actually weren't the first attempt at a stable universe and likely won't be the last.

/ It also acknowledges that we have a real hard time knowing what "stable" is as we really don't have a reference point to compare against.// We could be a short "Whoops, well that version of the laws of gravity was borked" universe./// Or the one where biological forms inexplicably became dominant over beings evolved from naturally occurring cogs and gears.//// Till all are one.

I'm going to sound really silly asking this... But since you mentioned the whole speed of light thing, I think this is a good time.

Every has always said that nothing can travel faster than the speed of light. Yet, the standard Big Bang theory postulates that when the bang occured, the inverse itself went from a particle sized point to something BILLIONS of miles across, in only a few 1000's of a second.That seems to be a rather large distance to cover at the plodding speed of light.Is this presumable because the laws of physics as we understand them now, simply didn't exist yet as the universe was initially exapanding?

He's expanding on Miguel Alcubierre's postulate that because "the expansion and contraction of space does not have a speed limit" it may be possible to make a chunk or "bubble" of space-time that can be propelled at faster than light. Then it would be a matter of hitching a ride *inside* that bubble.

On the non-skeptic side of things, it's worth noting that NASA is (or has been) OK with him pursuing this research in a public sort of way (PDF). In the skeptical camp, this business of having made a device but being overly cagey about it sets off the same alarms as the "free energy" or over-unity cranks. It'll be interesting to see if NASA continue to give him a platform of respectability to stand on or if they start to distance the organization from his claims.